Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

As we have seen in so many areas, the previous Government may have made promises about this station, but they allocated no feasibility or development funding to get the project moving. Through the spending review and infrastructure strategy, this Government will provide at least £445 million of rail enhancements over the next 10 years to deliver long-term infrastructure needs in Wales, including new stations. Details of how this funding will be allocated will be announced in due course.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

My local economy on the Isle of Wight is entirely reliant on ferry services for the movement of people, the delivery of products and, in the case of tourism, for customers. Will the Minister acknowledge just how important unregulated ferry services are for the entire economic wellbeing of the Isle of Wight?

[Heidi Alexander]

I do recognise that issue. The hon. Member and his colleague on the Isle of Wight have raised this matter with me previously, and I am meeting his colleague directly after this question time to talk further. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), hosted a meeting recently and we are considering what further we can do as a Department to support local leaders in finding a satisfactory resolution for his constituents.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

On my hon. Friend’s point about rural areas such as his constituency and my constituency on the Isle of Wight, it is difficult to move between towns. On the Isle of Wight, we have a radial system that makes it easy to get in and out of Newport, which sits in the middle of the island, but it is less easy to go anywhere else. I am at a slight loss as to how we get over that fundamental issue in bus franchising—this is geography, and the market for moving between villages is clearly smaller. I am concerned that the entire franchising model and, indeed, this clause are overselling a solution to a fundamental problem. If we are to get over that hurdle, it would ultimately require a lot of public money.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no commercial case for large-scale, frequent bus services to every small rural community. I have certainly not come across such a case, even if one does exist. The solution—if there is a solution—will be one of a number of things. Under a franchising scheme, it would be open to a local transport authority to invest in and design a scheme that provides for frequent bus services to every rural community. It would be possible to do that, but it would be phenomenally expensive.

Already, one of the key criticisms of the Bill is that it has no money attached to it, so we are going to spend the next two and a half weeks virtue signalling about how wonderful franchising could be. It is not mandatory, and no one is actually going to do it—outside of the big mayoral authorities that are doing it anyway under the Bus Services Act 2017—because there is no money supporting the Bill. It would be incredibly expensive.

There is an alternative, hybrid solution: a combination of scheduled bus services on the key arterial routes from big villages into their major towns, such as from Norfolk going into Norwich, a rural hub-and-spoke system for the more remote villages, as suggested by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, and demand-responsive public provision.

On Tuesday, I described this as the “Uberfication” of public transport. It still is unlikely to make sense on a purely commercial basis, but it is the kind of focused provision of public sector transport that could work in a highly rural area where the aggregate cost would be less than the blind provision on frequent, full bus services to every community, which would be monumentally expensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady is bending over backwards to think of hypothetical instances in which it is possible that something like that could exist. The fact remains that we must ask—this comes down to the philosophical difference between us, perhaps—whether we are looking after the passenger or the supplier. From my perspective, the Bill should have services for passengers squarely in its sights. If passengers will benefit from a new service, the local transport authority should allow it. After all, the aim of the Bill is to maximise general utility for the wider bus service. Amendment 47 would therefore prevent local authorities from sitting on their hands, as the hon. Lady suggests they might.

Amendment 48 goes one step further. If the previous two amendments were red meat to some members of this Committee, this one will send them over the top. It would scrap entirely the convoluted assessments about balancing benefits and adverse effects in proposed new subsections (5A)(a) and (b). The authority would simply take a view on the benefits for persons making journeys on the proposed service—what is wrong with that? If the service has benefits for customers, why should we not just go for it? It is a straightforward process where applicants are in the driving seat. The amendment would provide higher certainty for applicants and therefore encourage additional service providers.

I anticipate that hon. Members may say, “What about the web—the franchise service—that the local transport authority may be trying to design?” But I seek to remind them about the incentives of providers. Again, I speak as a former businessman. We sometimes forget something in this place. We make lots of rules and we deal with processes ad infinitum, and we think that everyone will be incredibly logical. We say, “Oh yes, they have to go through this process, then that process and the other one, and then the local authority may decide to help them or not.” That ignores the basic maxim of private enterprise, which is that time kills deals. If a process is convoluted by design, it is also, by design, time consuming, and therefore expensive and uncertain in its outcome.

Let us think of a potential service provider looking through these provisions. They would say, “I’ve jumped through the hoops of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), and I’ve demonstrated the evidential basis for this application,” but then there is the discretion at the end where the local authority may, for whatever reason, choose not to award the deal based on some plan for some date in the future that we have not even heard about. Is the provider even going to bother doing it in the first place? This is an important issue of practicality. Commercial organisations respond to incentives, and if we make something long-winded, expensive and complex, they are much less likely to bother doing it. They will employ their capital, their time and their creative energies elsewhere.

[Joe Robertson]

The more I hear the shadow Minister unpicking all these issues, the more it transpires that the whole franchising model that the Bill offers to local authorities is really rather unattractive. Particularly for smaller local authorities, it is complicated, and there is a huge risk that when the new service is implemented, despite the best of intentions, it will not run in the way that the local authority or commercial provider thought it would. All the while, the local authority—I am thinking in my case of the Isle of Wight council or the potential combined mayoral authority with Hampshire—is taking on that risk of things going wrong. The shadow Minister is getting to the heart of a fundamental problem with the Bill: it will not sort out bus services country-wide, particularly in rural areas. It is really just a model for the big cities.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is right. In broad terms, the Bill facilitates additional opportunities for local transport authorities, which is a good thing. As I have said, allowing franchising is in fact a Conservative concept. It goes back to the days of Mrs Thatcher, but more recently, the 2017 changes allowed franchising without consent for mayoral combined authorities. In fact, any local transport authority was allowed to apply for franchising operations, but with the safeguard that it required the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport, because of the huge commercial risks associated with franchising for local transport authorities, particularly smaller ones. That was an eminently sensible safeguard that I have spoken about previously, so now we have that risk.

Even if the local transport authority is capable of managing that risk, of developing the expertise to design these complex systems in-house, as is anticipated, and of starting a municipal bus company on top of designing the franchise operation, we cannot get away from the conclusion that is expensive. Whichever way it is designed, if it is going to improve services, it will be expensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

The shadow Minister makes a valid point, as is always the case, but it takes us into the philosophical domain again. I gently point out that there are other perfectly profitable industries where the cost-plus model is the industry norm, and where it is possible for investors to make a return.

Nevertheless, to bring us back down to earth, I want to mention a couple of scenarios. One is from my own experience—in fact, from the shadow Minister’s constituency, which I travelled through growing up, where we had two providers leapfrogging each other from Aylsham to Norwich on commuter journeys. It was literally the same service, but if someone happened to get on the wrong bus, they could not get the same route back on the other operator. That is a fine example of why it would be appropriate to refuse a cross-border permit.

Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) sent me an example:

“We also have an issue of cross-county boundary bus routes. For example it takes maximum 10 minutes to drive from Malmesbury (Wiltshire) to Tetbury (Gloucestershire) but up to 2 hours on the bus as there is a huge diversion to another big town and then on to Tetbury through the small villages”.

These measures are about the practicalities of cross-border permits. With more rural areas likely to enter into combined mayoral authority arrangements, that will reduce the need for cross-border permits. Although I am grateful to the shadow Minister, I do not see the equivalence with open access in rail. This is, to me, what validates the franchising model overall, as well as providing for necessary moderation in common-sense, cross-border issues.

[Joe Robertson]

It may be tempting to think that the shadow Minister was particularly detailed, lengthy and comprehensive in his earlier contribution, but from where I was sitting, he was all too brief. There were a great range of issues that he failed to address, and I feel it is my role to address them.

Before that, I will agree with what the hon. Member for North Norfolk said about different companies providing services to similar or the same destinations, where using one service in one direction means that another service in the other direction cannot be used. Unfortunately, the Government are currently unpersuaded that that is a problem for ferry services to the Isle of Wight, which is a shame, given that the Government—I agree with them on this—are reforming public transport. I will, however, save that debate for another time.

It was good to hear some genuine philosophical disagreement between the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I am sure that the hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of members of the public listening to this Bill Committee will have noticed that it was done in a polite and respectful way. I think the shadow Minister almost went too far at one stage, and I was nudging the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to intervene—even though she is a Green MP and I am a Conservative—because I think she missed an opportunity to fight back, but maybe she will in a later sitting.

I will make a few brief points on the principle, but they are anchored in amendments 46 and 50. They concern the idea that assessing whether a new proposed service will have an adverse effect on a current local service is slightly academic, contested and possibly futile, especially if we add in the possibility that, although the analysis and conclusion may have been done in good faith, they will not translate when a service is brought into effect and the market is tested.

I therefore completely support the shadow Minister’s amendments seeking to get rid of the analysis of an adverse effect. It is entirely possible that an element of the service could be adversely affected by the introduction of a new service. To some people, that is a net gain; to others, it is a net loss. Who is to say which of those competing groups is more important than the other?

I have a completely hypothetical example. The local economy of my constituency is heavily reliant on tourism, but people also use buses to get to work and my older constituents rely on them for their daily movements, such as going shopping, visiting friends or going to appointments, including at the hospital. We could end up with a bus franchising proposal that has a net positive effect on moving visitors around between the key tourist areas. That may have an overall positive effect on the economy—on paper and maybe in reality—and that effect may trickle down and raise the prosperity of the whole area. However, that proposal could also have a negative effect on the older population, who need bus services to move around year in, year out. They do not need to travel to the key hotspots that drive the tourist economy, but to GP practices and shopping areas, and not tourist shopping areas but those that provide essential goods for residents, particularly older residents.

That example poses a very legitimate question: is it more important to provide a service that leads to a general raising of the economy and wellbeing by improving tourism, which some might say has a trickle-down effect on everyone, including older residents, or is it better to protect people who are more vulnerable and who have fewer opportunities, if any, to use a different mode of transport? People could come to fair but different conclusions about that.

Whether a proposed new service will have an adverse effect on a local service is an unanswerable question, and it cannot be fitted into an assessment. If an assessment can be made at all, it will be entirely reliant on subjective, statist, planned, expert-led analysis. One can only hope that a conclusion drawn from that analysis would translate into the real world and be correct, but it is entirely possible that it would not.

[Amanda Hack]

The hon. Gentleman’s analogy ignores the passenger transport strategies that local government should already be undertaking, and the fact that local government already does a large piece of work to make sure that those strategies are relevant to the local economy. The Bill gives local government the opportunity to get the funding—that has not been mentioned—to start making bus services feel like what the local population and economy actually need.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Lady, but of course, it is more complex than that. Obviously, a local strategy will and should sit at the heart of any decision making, but there are great challenges in assessing whether a new service is fundamentally having an adverse effect on an existing service. Even approaching it in that way slightly negates the idea of holistic planning—rather than considering whether a new service conflicts with an existing service, we should be treating them both as one service.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond.

The Bill recognises that commercial operators can play a key role in providing commercial services that complement franchising schemes and add value to the overall bus offer for local transport users. That includes cross-boundary services, which provide crucial links between communities. That is why we are legislating to introduce new tests that franchising authorities can use in determining whether to grant service permits. The tests allow authorities to consider a much wider range of benefits that services proposed by commercial operators could provide. The new tests will also allow authorities to tolerate some adverse effects to franchised services if they are outweighed by the benefits. Overall, franchising authorities will have greater scope to grant service permits and harness the additionality of the market in delivering great bus networks.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham would, however, undo many of the improvements we are making, and undermine the service permit regime as well as local transport authorities’ ability to franchise. The amendments would largely remove franchising authorities’ ability to even consider whether a commercial service would have an adverse effect on franchised services, while compelling them to grant service permits in the vast majority of cases. In practice, that would mean that commercial services could compete directly with franchised services, undermining the service finances and goals, and ultimately making franchising unworkable.

In direct response to the hon. Member’s comments, the Bill gives greater scope for authorities to grant these additional services. However, as he acknowledged, it cannot be a free-for-all, which is what the amendment would in effect cause. We understand that in Greater Manchester the vast majority of service permits have been granted under the existing test, and the Bill’s measure will allow franchising authorities even more flexibility to grant service permits with applications from operators or in the interest of passengers and local people.

Addressing the claim of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East that franchising is unattractive to smaller rural local transport authorities, the Bill aims to give local leaders greater flexibility to determine how best to plan and deliver bus services to meet the needs of local transport users. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Consideration has been given to rural modes of franchising, and there are plans to pilot models better suited to rural areas, as I have touched on in the past.

While it is for local transport authorities to decide the best option to manage their services, franchising can be an attractive option in a rural setting. It can be used to support a fully integrated network, combining core franchise routes with commercial services operating under a service permit awarded by the authority, ensuring strong branch connections to main corridors.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am going to try and make some progress. We have spent a significant amount of time on this.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham once again raised Manchester’s experience with bus franchising. He again quoted figures on the cost of franchising in Manchester. On the first day of the Committee I explained that the figures referred to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network. The adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester has resulted in little additional cost, and evidence to date shows that the model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.

Another franchising model in Jersey encourages both operators and local transport authorities to reinvest into the bus network. The operator keeps fare revenue, and profits that go over a certain set limit are shared between the LTA and the operator. Money is then reinvested by the LTA to improve services. The model adds flexibility and actually supports innovation and draws on the experience of the operator. This model has been tested in other areas through our franchising pilot programme.

The Bill makes some limited changes to the role of traffic commissioners in England, including changing the default position for the registration of services operating under the service permits within a franchised area. The traffic commissioner will also have powers to act against operators who breach the Bill’s mandatory training requirements; we will come on to that later in the Committee’s debates.

The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions and countries of Great Britain means that they are well placed to make decisions about the operation of bus services in different places. The responsibility of traffic commissioners extends beyond buses. To mention just a couple, it includes the licensing of operators of heavy goods vehicles and other service vehicles, and the granting of vocational licences. These responsibilities clearly extend beyond the Bill’s purpose; this Bill is not the place for a wider debate on the role of traffic commissioners.

I reiterate that passengers are at the very centre of this Government’s bus reform agenda. This is about delivering better buses, and people taking the bus more because they offer better connections and are reliable, safe, affordable and integrated into the transport network. Given that, I would ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to press his amendments.

Government amendments 4 and 5, tabled in my name, are intended to provide clarity on the type of services considered “cross-boundary” under clause 7. This means that any service that has at least one stop in an area with a franchising scheme, and at least one stop outside of the franchised area, will be considered a cross-boundary service. This change is logical, simplifies matters for franchising authorities and operators, and will ensure that the benefits of cross-boundary services to multiple communities can be considered, regardless of where the service starts and ends.

Clause 7 gives local authorities greater flexibility in how they access service permit applications from operators. These permits allow bus operators to run services into, or within, a franchised area on a commercial basis, rather than as a franchised service. The Bill introduces new tests that local authorities can use when deciding whether to approve a service permit. These tests allow them to consider a wider range of factors, such as whether the proposed service would benefit passengers outside the franchised area in the case of cross-boundary services.

It is important that franchising authorities are able to benefit from the opportunities that the commercial sector can provide in franchising areas, including for cross-border services, which are those serving a franchising area and nearby areas. These services are important, as the bus journeys that passengers want to make are not necessarily defined by scheme boundaries. This measure aims to give franchising authorities greater flexibility to provide better overall outcomes for passengers.

Clause 8 reapplies the requirement for bus services operating under a service permit in a franchised area to register their routes and timetables with the traffic commissioner. For cross-boundary services, the section of the route outside the franchised area already needs to be registered. The Bill clarifies that the part inside the franchised area also needs to be registered. This keeps the requirements consistent and easier for bus operators to follow.

In addition to the registration requirements, cross-boundary services and any services operated, under permit, wholly within the franchised area, such as sightseeing tours, must also still comply with the conditions of their service permit. This lets franchising authorities maintain control through existing regulations. However, the Bill also gives franchising authorities the power to exempt certain services from registration inside the franchised area if they would prefer to manage them solely through the service permit. Overall, these changes provide clearer rules for operators and authorities, and greater flexibility for authorities, helping to improve service delivery for passengers.

Clause 9 automatically exempts temporary rail and tram replacement services from the requirement to obtain a service permit when operating within a franchised area. As I am sure Members will understand, these services often need to be introduced quickly and to adapt to changing circumstances, so flexibility is essential. By removing the permit requirement, this measure reduces administrative burdens and saves both operators and franchising authorities the time and costs associated with applying for and issuing permits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to my new clause 36, but I will first touch briefly on my concerns about new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham.

I can see the case that the hon. Member and his colleagues are trying to make about the importance of periods of stability for bus operators. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon says, the timeframe proposed does not strike the right balance. Five years would be longer than the term of a metro mayor or local authority, meaning that the bad work of a previous mayor or administration could tie the hands of their successor and, most importantly, could leave residents stuck with the same problems for half a decade. Given the timeframes at play, I think a better compromise could be found. It would be bad news for democratic accountability if a previous administration’s botch job—or even intentional mismanagement, perish the thought—of a franchising assessment could prevent its newly elected successor for taking action over the entire course of its term.

I also have concerns about the impact of local government reorganisation under the current drafting of the new clause. It says that

“the same area, or a substantially similar area”

could be covered by a whole new authority or administration within the timeframe, where a franchising assessment is prevented. That means that a body that has been wholly abolished could leave its successors hamstrung.

I appreciate the intention behind the clause, and I am grateful to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham and his team for raising the concerns of the industry about the timeframes. However, I wonder whether a compromise could be found on Report that better balances operators’ concerns with democratic accountability.

My new clause 36 would make a very simple addition to the assessments for franchising schemes, ensuring that we look into how a new scheme can lead to better integration for different modes of transport. People feel that there is a lack of joined-up thinking between our bus and train networks in many rural areas. Arguably, that is down to the current set-up, with two private companies responsible for services but under no requirement to consult or collaborate on delivering more linked-up services.

[Joe Robertson]

I take the hon. Member’s point about joining up buses and trains. As I am on the Committee, might he also include ferries in that analysis?

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his astute point. I would be glad to include ferries. After all, the new clause proposes better-integrated transport across all modes and modalities. We do not have any ferries other than river-crossing ferries in my constituency.

My constituents have found the issue of lack of co-ordination so frustrating that they have carried out research into it themselves; I thank David and James for furnishing me with the statistics. The first bus to arrive misses the first train of the day from Sheringham by a mere six minutes. For those who are not familiar with the Bittern line, it does not quite have central London regularity, which means that it is roughly an hour until the next possible train arrives. At other points during the day, there is either a 45-minute wait or hoping for a delay so that the bus arrives before the train departs.

A more joined-up approach would benefit both bus operators and train companies, allowing seamless integration of travel and reducing the miles in the journey to be carried out by car. My new clause would add to the franchising assessment the ability to see how franchising could make that transport integration a reality.

I do not think that franchising is a silver bullet to create integrated transport, which is why we will later consider an amendment that I have tabled that would add the enhanced partnership model. However, while we are expanding how franchising works, it would be remiss of us not to add common-sense thinking about integrated transport for those who are embarking on franchising for the first time.

I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said about amendment 57. We have got to fund it, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I was planning to say a few words about amendment 39, but the shadow Minister has really said it: it not necessary to include healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes in the definition. Of course, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that those things are important. I can think of dozens of important and socially necessary places where buses might go, but I would not propose to add them all to clause 14(2)(c), not least because when attempting to make an exhaustive list, it is always possible to leave things out, and there is great scope for argument over issues on the periphery that some people think are important and others do not.

The measure’s wording is broad. A “social necessary local service” is defined as one that allows passengers to access: “essential goods and services”, which is very wide; “economic opportunities (including employment)”, which is very wide; or “social activities”, which is also very wide. Plainly, healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes fall within those definitions, so the amendment is unnecessary. However, I welcome the hon. Lady’s highlighting those things, because healthcare and schools plainly rank very highly.

[Mr Kohler]

The Liberal Democrats strongly support amendment 39, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As has been said, it is remarkably similar to, if not the same as, an amendment that we tabled in the House of Lords. It rightly proposes to expand the definition of “socially necessary local service” to include routes that serve healthcare facilities. I recognise the argument that the existing definition already covers them, but we think it is important to explicitly include hospitals, GPs and clinics. Accessing healthcare is a social necessity that should be explicitly recognised in law.

The same is true of education. From conversations with my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), to name a few, I know that there are growing concerns about school and college bus routes being cut, leaving students unable to travel independently to their places of learning.

The Government may argue that such services are already included under the definition but, if that is the case, why not make that explicit? Clarifying it in statute would only strengthen the Bill and provide clearer guidance for local authorities.

Department for Transport

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The hon. Member talks about £100 million being available for mayoral combined authorities, but is she confident that that is genuinely new money, rather than money reallocated from other pots for mayors to distribute?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member asks a good question and the answer is that it is a mixture. It is the philosophy of devolution that is important because mayoral combined authorities in particular can deliver in ways that will be different according to their specific priorities and needs.

There has been a potential challenge to the Department in achieving national priorities. It is also worth noting that the main estimate for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides additional funding for the West Midlands and Great Manchester combined authorities, so there are other pots of money from other Departments that mayors can pool together to put to best use for their authorities. Will the Minister set out what happens if a devolved institution diverges from departmental priorities, for example by opting not to fund active travel despite the Department’s objective to increase active travel?

The future introduction of place-based business cases, as set out in the spending review, has the potential to transform how Government think about the value and benefit of transport interventions and outcomes. When business cases are reformed along those lines, we look forward to seeing a difference in how the Government draw and think about those connections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on one thing, which is the importance of transport for connecting communities. I then diverge from her a little, because if this Government are serious about unlocking and delivering economic growth, particularly across the west midlands, they would be serious about funding transport.

This Government’s commitment to £10.2 billion for rail enhancement is welcome, but, as ever with the Government, it lacks detail and leaves unanswered questions. Take the example of the midlands rail hub, for which the previous Government not only committed to the initial £123 million, but pledged £1.7 billion to deliver the hub in full under Network North. However, today, through the spending review and responses to my written questions, it has become clear that the hub is funded not to delivery, but only to the next stage. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will clarify once and for all whether the new Government are committed to fully funding the delivery of this project. If so, when will it be completed? It is critical to the infrastructure of the west midlands and beyond.

Staying on the topic of trains, I cannot let this debate go without mentioning Aldridge train station. The city region sustainable transport settlements are also covered in these estimates. It was thanks to the hard work of the previous mayor, Andy Street, working with the then Conservative Government that we secured and set out a fully funded CRSTS programme. That included £30 million to deliver Aldridge train station in my constituency. The funding for the delivery of the station was earmarked for 2027, providing rail connectivity for the first time since the 1960s. Sadly, it was the decision of the Transport Secretary, together with the Chancellor, to approve Mayor Parker’s decision to convert the capital funding to revenue. The funding had been ringfenced for our station, but it has now been moved away from Aldridge train station—I suspect that it has been moved to fund the mayor’s vanity bus project.

The 2025 spending review also confirmed £15.6 billion in funding to provide transport for city region settlements for nine mayoral authorities, including £2.4 billion for the west midlands. The mayor could have chosen to get Aldridge station back on track, but no, he has chosen to keep it in the sidings. This is despite the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicating in this House on 4 June that the mayor had not spent all his money, and even encouraging colleagues to lobby him on how he might wish to spend the rest. Suffice it to say, the Mayor of the West Midlands knows my views and he knows my ask, and I will continue asking.

Let me turn now to bus services, which are key to connectivity and to opportunity, particularly for communities such as mine which find themselves still without a train station. We have seen in the estimates that the national bus fare cap, which was increased from £2.50 to £3 in January 2025, is being extended to March 2027. That is fine, but the Transport Secretary claims that this is a measure to reduce the cost of everyday journeys for working people, yet for those of us in the west midlands, it is yet another hit on top of what we have already seen from the mayor, who has hiked fares and monthly and annual bus passes by more than 8%.

In the debate on the Bus Services (No, 2) Bill earlier this month, I asked the Transport Secretary about how the so-called “socially necessary” services referenced in the Bill would be protected and how they would be defined. She told me that it is down to individual local authorities to define what is socially necessary, but gave no assurances about how they would be supported to continue to provide these vital services. As we saw, £750 million per year announced in the spending review is to maintain and improve bus services. It would be really helpful to understand what allocation from the spending review will go to fund these services in the west midlands.

[Joe Robertson]

My right hon. Friend talks about the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which is now in Committee. Does she share my concern that the franchising arrangements that that Bill offers have little attraction for small local authorities such as mine on the Isle of Wight, because if it were minded to go down the route of franchising, it would take all the risk and could end up with a very large shortfall that perhaps metropolitan boroughs can swallow, but certainly smaller local authorities such as mine could not?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point on franchising. He is right to highlight the potential impact and the challenge for smaller authorities, but there are also challenges for the bigger authorities. My constituency is part of the West Midlands combined authority, and also part of Walsall metropolitan borough, but I am equally concerned about how this new model that our mayor is pushing will be sustainable. I fear that, in the future, my residents might find either a reduction in services, or increases in cost. For constituencies on the edge of a large combined authority, there is always that feeling that services are sucked into the centre and that we are left out on the periphery.

Transport is vital to people and communities, and it is vital in accessing employment and opportunity. From the Government’s plans, it is quite clear that they have simply used reviews to move money around to their pet projects, and they are not joining up communities—simply another missed opportunity. For as long as my constituents continue to raise with me the question of Aldridge station, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue to raise it in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank speakers who have taken part in the debate, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, for her comprehensive speech.

Transport is a huge priority for residents of Dartford. The constituency contains the only Thames crossing east of London, as well as a stop on High Speed 1. My constituency has several key railway stations and bus services that need major investment. It is fair to say that Dartford provides some good examples of Government policy starting to get it right, as well as of challenges that we all face.

I will start with roads, and I put on record my appreciation for the announcement in the spending review that the Department for Transport will create a £1 billion structures fund to repair the rundown transport infrastructure—roads, bridges and the like—that this Government inherited, and for which there is no other available funding. Nowhere will that be more welcome than in Swanscombe, where the collapse of Galley Hill road more than two years ago has left residents unable to use the main road out of their town. They are also blighted by heavy goods vehicles that are using roads that are far too small for them. I particularly thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for visiting soon after her appointment following last year’s election. I look forward to more information in the coming months about how Kent county council, and other councils across the country, can apply to that structures fund.

I warmly welcome the development consent order, and the funding announced for vital work on the proposed Lower Thames crossing, which, when finally built, will relieve the traffic overspill that regularly brings Dartford to a complete halt. Residents in Dartford and beyond eagerly anticipate further news on the funding package. We saw £690 million announced in the comprehensive spending review, but they want further funding in the months ahead—private sector funding, as well as more public sector funding. I look forward very much to working with Ministers to make that happen. The jobs, training and new business opportunities that the construction and operation of the crossing will offer will help to drive economic growth across the Thames estuary, and in the wider region beyond.

Money for potholes, including £54 million for Kent this year, is incredibly welcome, after our roads in Kent became a visible sign of decline under the Conservative party. Residents will be looking to the new Reform county council to make a real improvement to our roads with that money, so let us see it properly spent.

[Joe Robertson]

It sounds as if the hon. Member is placing his faith in his new Reform county council. Is that really the case?

[Jim Dickson]

Having seen the DOGE unit turn up in Kent on day one—people with no knowledge of Kent, wearing baseball hats—I am not hugely confident that the council will spend the money well, but let us give it a chance. I throw that challenge out to them. Our community needs Kent county council to put the £23 million of funding that the Government have provided to good use. It must also use the new franchise powers that will be available through the Bus Services (No.2) Bill to improve bus services in Dartford and across Kent. Again, we will be holding the council to account. I also want to say a quick word about welcome developments in rail.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am a serving councillor on Norfolk county council.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I am a councillor in Merton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I will certainly benefit from your guidance on the particulars of the proceedings.

In general, I am a big fan of the Bill. I am a bus person at heart. Wherever I go in the country, I make a point of taking the buses—I take notes and sometimes write to local councillors. That is how passionately I feel about this. The good measures in the Bill need to be backed up by clause 1, which was added to the Bill in the other place. The Bill has come from the other place in very good shape, and the clause is part of that.

I worry about what the move from the Government to strike out the clause portends for the rest of the Committee proceedings. Is it the sign of real commitment that the bus services deserve? Is it a sign that we will see high-quality, reliable, frequent, high-performance, accessible bus services for the whole country? The Government should explain more why they want to remove this very good clause.

I support new clause 22, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk. It would extend a stronger duty, including an accountability, to local transport authorities. Empowering local authorities is great, but those who need buses—those who struggle with car dependency and cannot reach essential services—need the good measures in the Bill to be backed up by both those duties and real funding as soon as possible.

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger.

I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying.

The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says:

“It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.”

Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider

“the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”.

There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said in my opening remarks, clause 1 does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. The shadow Minister talked about incentives; I think the incentives for local authorities are really clear, if not the clearest. They know what is best for their local areas. They are driven by the desire to tackle the social and economic challenges within their areas, and I do not agree that the clause would add anything to that.

The shadow Minister’s reading of “quality” to include safety is subjective. I do not think it is as clear as he made out. The franchising guidance states that an LTA must

“explain how far it will deliver improvements”

if it franchises. The guidance also has a chapter to ensure that an LTA articulates how it is putting people at the heart of franchising assessments. Although it is not in the legislation, the guidance is clear about driving improvements.

New clause 22 would create an additional reporting burden on local authorities and local transport authorities, which are already operating under resource constraints, while potentially undermining their devolved powers to determine transport priorities in line with their local transport plans. I am not able to support it.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

The concern raised by many stakeholders about this Bill is not about its contents. We all agree with its contents, but the money and expertise are lacking. Local councils do not have either. As I said on Second Reading, although this Bill

“hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 97.]

We have great sympathy with Conservative new clauses 14 and 18. It is important that we ask local authorities to list the objectives and evidence. It is also be important to go through the costs. Those constraints and disciplines are crucial and will avoid ideological decisions. We have seen that already with rail nationalisation, where a Transport for London model, which the industry and many Labour Members supported at one point, would have been a better approach than concession contracts. New clauses 14 and 18 are a useful brake on letting ideology, rather than pragmatism, take control. They are not impediments; they are things that surely should be done and are good practice. We will support new clauses 14 and 18.

On new clause 30, we want to make it easier for local transport authorities that do not have the expertise. Having a number of off-the-shelf approaches to franchising is surely a good thing. There are specific issues in rural areas and villages, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk will speak to, but in urban areas we have real issues with bus routes that do not keep to local authority boundaries, but cross them. There are problems of co-ordination when bus routes cross boundaries, and an absence of buses because of those problems. Having a number of off-the-shelf ways to help authorities would surely be a good thing. I will leave it to my hon. Friend to take on that matter.

[Joe Robertson]

All the comments I was going to make have already been made by the shadow Minister. He was so complete and comprehensive that he leaves no space for any additional comment. However, I will briefly give my slant on some of the points. When I rose at the beginning of this sitting, it was to talk about the costs that would be put on to local authorities by the general duties in new clause 22. That has been dealt with. This clause will put much more significant costs on to local authorities that choose to go down the franchising route—after all, franchising is a choice available to a transport authority. Those are costs incurred by transferring a risk from commercial operators to local authorities and the taxpayer if the business does not go in the way of the business plan.

The shadow Minister has already spoken about the huge cost subsidy, effectively, to the services operated in London and Manchester, where there are huge economy of scale advantages. My view is that the franchising model, if it works at all, works for high population densities—cities, large local authorities and those that can swallow bad years—and offers nothing at all for smaller authorities other than the option to take a step into the unknown for no obvious benefit. I think of my local authority on the Isle of Wight—it is fanciful to think that that unitary authority could in any way take a step towards franchising. Even if we end up with a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire county council, which has a big budget deficit, it seems highly unattractive to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight to go down the franchising route and take on all those risks.

I have no direct experience of the Manchester model, but if Manchester really is the shining beacon, it is one that has cost a huge amount of money. However, that is a huge amount of money that the taxpayer in Manchester may be able to swallow. For a transport authority with a significant chunk of rurality—Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is an exception only in that it has an island attached to it, not in terms of how rural it is—I cannot see the figures adding up because no money goes with franchising.

The Government may talk about money being available for bus services and the £3 fare cap. Those are welcome things, but they are not sums of money that naturally flow with an option to go down the franchising route. Although that does not go against having franchising as an option, I feel that it is going to be attractive only to a fairly small proportion of England—areas with high-density populations and those with metropolitan authorities. In this country, franchising is for the few; it is not a mass model that all local authorities will find attractive. It could lead to a more uneven quality of bus services across the country, and to a two-tier system.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I want to challenge the suggestion that franchising is an obligation. It is not; it is a power that is given to authorities to use if they wish. However, in those communities that were so poorly served for the past 14 years under the previous Government, should we not inspire an ambition for better bus services?

[Joe Robertson]

I was not suggesting that it is an obligation. Plainly, franchising is an option. My point is that it is an option that is unattractive to smaller local authorities, which cannot benefit from the economies of scale of franchising bus services. It is much more attractive for city areas. Of course I want rural bus services to be improved; my constituency is a rural area and we want better bus services. I see absolutely nothing in the franchising option that will deliver that, because I cannot see a local authority—in my own or other rural areas—looking at it and thinking, “This is helpful.” That is because it does not, as a right, bring money with it.

HS2 Reset

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I understand the importance of the Ely area scheme in terms of rail infrastructure, and I hope to say more about rail investment in the weeks before the summer recess.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State set out the steps she is taking to ensure that infrastructure like the £100 million bat tunnel will not be included in future projects, such as East West Rail?

[Heidi Alexander]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill includes proposals to reform species and habitats protection. The proposals for environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund enable a shift to protecting the whole population of a species, rather than focusing on purely local considerations. That will ensure better outcomes for nature, without causing us to incur unreasonable costs, as happened with the HS2 bat mitigation structure.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon]

I will make some progress and then give way.

Members should take the word of Centre for Cities, which has made it clear that expanding franchising could expose councils to serious financial risks, because after decades of deregulated services, many transport authorities simply lack the skills and capacity to manage a comprehensive bus network, yet would be financially responsible if an undertaking goes wrong.

These are not just hypothetical concerns. The experience in Greater Manchester illustrates just how easily costs can spiral, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket. The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that initial projections published in Greater Manchester combined authority’s transport revenue budget put the cost of transitioning to a franchised system at £134.5 million for 2024-25. That figure has since ballooned, with ongoing operational costs now forecast to exceed £226 million per year by 2025-26, which is a 68% increase in one year. Over four years, the scheme could cost up to £1 billion—far, far more than anticipated. Moreover, the House will know that the annual level of bus subsidy in London last year amounted to £646 million. Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the entire country. It also has the highest level of bus use. Yet even with all those advantages, it requires that level of annual subsidy just to keep the network running.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

When my hon. Friend talks about the increased risk smaller local authorities would face through franchising, he could be talking about my local authority, Isle of Wight council. Does he see anything in the Bill that is appealing to small unitary authorities, or is this really just a Bill for bigger metropolitan areas and large towns?

[Gareth Bacon]

The risk of the Bill is that it does not come with substantial funding attached. That is the problem. It is mismanaging the public’s expectations. I expect we will hear from a parade of Labour MPs talking about how it will transform services in their local area. Without the required level of funding, it simply will not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

That is so true. I was delighted to join my hon. Friend on a recent visit to Fleetwood nautical campus in her constituency, where I saw the excellent facilities and what a fantastic advocate she is for the people of Fleetwood and its port. I briefly met with the soon-to-be new owners of that port. Once that deal is finalised and they have plans to progress, I will sit down with my hon. Friend and the new owners to look at the potential for what we can achieve there.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Isle of Wight ferry company, Red Funnel, is controlled by Canadian pension funds. It is unregulated and charges Isle of Wight residents up to £400 to take a return car ferry crossing. Does the Minister support that ownership model and pricing structure for a lifeline transport connection in the UK?

[Mike Kane]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Avanti up to Manchester can cost more, but that does not help his constituents in the Isle of Wight, who have been struggling for some time. That is why I went to the Isle of Wight to meet the hon. Member and representatives from the council. We are establishing an local transport forum, and we have agreed a number of ways forward, looking at ticketing, pricing and the reliability of those ferries to the Island. I promise to continue to be engaged, but I will need the hon. Member’s help with this as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

As all of us know, Scotland has a world-renowned shipbuilding industry, so it saddens me that, under the SNP, Scotland’s ferries are being built elsewhere. I am aware that Scottish colleagues want to see reforms to how ferries are run and procured. In the meantime, I urge the Scottish Government to reconsider sending vital jobs and investment abroad.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on improving everyday transport for UK residents, and her comments on Scottish ferries. Does she agree that my constituency, on the Isle of Wight, should not be left behind in the Government’s transport plans? Will she agree to intervene and look at all options in order to regulate private equity—currently, we are entirely reliant on it for our connectivity with the UK mainland, which is harming our local economy—and to look at the potential of empowering any future combined mayoral authority with some regulatory power over cross-Solent transport?

[Heidi Alexander]

I had a useful meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) about this issue a couple of weeks ago, and I am afraid he slightly beat the hon. Gentleman to it in suggesting that we should consider what powers might be available through any future mayoral combined authority. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we are speaking to stakeholders across the island, including the ferry operators, to understand these issues in more depth and how we might make improvements going forward. That engagement will continue, and my hon. Friend the Maritime Minister will have a meeting with all stakeholders in due course.